Autumn: Hey everyone, and welcome to the podcast! Ever wondered why certain huge projects—like the Empire State Building—get done early, while others, like the California High-Speed Rail, just seem to become never-ending money pits? Rachel: Hmm, if I had to guess, I'd say people always “think” they can build it faster than is actually possible, right? Autumn: You're not far off! But the story's actually much more complex. Today, we’re diving into How Big Things Get Done by Bent Flyvbjerg and Dan Gardner. It's a really insightful look at why some ambitious projects succeed and others just completely fall apart. From understanding our own biases to using modular designs, this book uncovers how to tackle major projects without massive headaches or bankrupting yourself. Rachel: Okay, so this goes beyond just construction fiascos, yeah? We're not only talking about bridges and skyscrapers here? Autumn: Precisely! Whether we're talking about wind farms, film productions, or—yes, Rachel, I'm serious—even building a moon base, the book gives us strategies to boost our chances of success by being deliberate in our thinking and quick in our actions. Rachel: Alright, you've piqued my interest, I'll admit. So, what exactly are we going to be exploring today? Autumn: We'll be focusing on three main concepts. First, we're going to look at the pitfalls of human optimism and what the authors call “strategic misrepresentation.” In other words, those overly optimistic plans that sound fantastic—until reality hits you hard. Second, we’ll explore the "think slow, act fast" methodology, kind of like constructing a skyscraper, brick by careful brick. And third, we'll be turning past lessons into future predictions through "reference class forecasting," which is pretty much the project manager's ultimate crystal ball. Rachel: Okay, I’m on board. If this can help prevent more public money from going down the drain, I’m definitely listening.

Autumn: So Rachel, about those overly optimistic forecasts and strategic misrepresentation... What's really behind it? Is it just wishful thinking, or is there more to it? Rachel: Yeah, are people just naturally seeing the world through rose-colored glasses, or is there some deliberate… fudging of the numbers going on? Autumn: It's a combination, really. There's “optimism bias”, that tendency we all have to think things will go more smoothly and cheaply than they actually do. But then there's also “strategic misrepresentation”, where leaders – think politicians or CEOs – intentionally create an unrealistic picture to get a project approved. It’s like saying a kitchen reno will be $10,000, knowing full well it’ll be $30,000, but figuring you'll get the go-ahead with the smaller number. Rachel: So, a little bit of "oops, I underestimated" mixed with a little bit of "let's not scare them off with the real price tag"? Sounds like a recipe for disaster. Autumn: Exactly. And California's High-Speed Rail is a perfect example of what happens when those two collide. Back in '08, Californians voted for this dream project – an 800-mile high-speed rail connecting L.A. to San Francisco. The initial pitch was all optimism: "$33 billion, ready by 2020, and it'll revolutionize travel!" People loved it. Rachel: Okay, so a hopeful vision... and then what? Reality bites, I presume? Autumn: Big time. The costs ballooned – to $43 billion, then $68 billion, and eventually around $100 billion. Delays mounted due to land acquisition, environmental issues, and, frankly, shifting political priorities. By 2019, they’d scaled it back to a 171-mile stretch between Merced and Bakersfield, costing $23 billion. Critics called it the "bullet train to nowhere." Rachel: Merced to Bakersfield? With all due respect, that's not quite the L.A. to San Francisco dream they sold. Was that pure optimism blinding them? Autumn: Partly. Planners ignored what Flyvbjerg calls "the realities on the ground." They underestimated how long it takes to acquire land or get community buy-in. But strategic misrepresentation was at play, too. To sell the project, they downplayed costs and risks, assuming they'd figure it out later. Rachel: So, not exactly lying, but… stretching the truth a bit? Autumn: "Selective truth-telling" might be a kinder way to put it. But this habit of underestimating budgets and timelines to get approval is classic strategic misrepresentation. The problem is, once the truth comes out, it destroys public trust – and in this case, possibly derailed the whole project. Rachel: "Derail” – I see what you did there. But okay, let's not just pick on California. What about the Pentagon? I heard that build was a bit of a rushed job, too. Autumn: Absolutely. Back in 1941, the Pentagon was conceived as a centralized headquarters for the War Department and the pressure was intense – the U.S. was preparing for World War II. Brigadier General Brehon Somervell was in charge, and his motto was basically, "Think fast, act fast." Rachel: Sounds... efficient. Until it isn't. Autumn: Exactly. Somervell and his team rushed site selection and planning, choosing a marshy area that was totally unsuitable. They had to redesign the whole project mid-process. They also started digging and pouring concrete based on a design that hadn’t been finalized – talk about getting ahead of yourself. It was chaos. Rachel: Let me guess, that rush ended up slowing things down? Autumn: Precisely. Rushing often backfires, especially with complex projects. When you skip feasibility studies or foundational planning, you're setting yourself up for delays later. The Pentagon got built, eventually, but with unnecessary complications and political fallout. Rachel: So, the moral of the story: slow down. Take your time. Dot your i's, cross your t's. It all seems pretty obvious, doesn’t it? Who doesn't know that good planning is important? Autumn: You'd think so! But when optimism bias and the pressure to deliver fast results kick in, even seasoned pros can cut corners. It's not just about knowing what to do – it's about having the discipline to follow through. Which brings us to things like reference-class forecasting. Rachel: "Reference-class forecasting" – sounds impressive. What's that all about? Autumn: It's actually simple. You take your project – say, a high-speed rail – and compare it to similar projects in the past. What did those cost? How long did they take? What problems did they face? By basing your predictions on real-world data, you avoid making overly optimistic assumptions. Rachel: So, less "dream big," more "look at what actually happened before?" Autumn: Exactly. It's like going out to lunch and saying, "The last ten times I ordered this, it took 30 minutes. I'm not gonna assume it'll magically appear in five minutes today." It's pragmatic and evidence-based. Rachel: I like it. Sounds like the perfect antidote to both rosy optimism and… shall we say, creative accounting. But I bet not every project leader is thrilled to hear that their grand vision might be a budget-busting, time-consuming nightmare, right? Autumn: Unfortunately, no. Admitting that a project will cost more and take longer isn't the best way to win votes or investor enthusiasm. That's why Flyvbjerg and Gardner emphasize the importance of transparency from the start. Leaders need the courage to be honest, even if it's not what people want to hear. Rachel: Courageous honesty... as a leadership principle? Groundbreaking. Autumn: <Laughs> Sarcasm noted, but these lessons aren't just about avoiding disasters. They're about creating space for better execution. If leaders and planners embrace reality instead of fighting it, we can avoid a lot of heartache – and budget blowouts.

Autumn: So, understanding these common traps naturally leads us to explore how successful projects actually avoid them—and that brings us to what Flyvbjerg and Gardner call the cornerstone of success: “Think Slow, Act Fast”. Rachel: Okay, so we’re moving on from the depressing stories of trains to nowhere and projects rushing headfirst into disaster, to actual solutions, I hope? Autumn: Exactly! This principle is all about finding the right balance between thorough preparation and decisive action. The idea's actually pretty simple but, you know, incredibly effective: you spend as much time as you need upfront meticulously planning every single detail. That way, when execution finally begins, it just moves smoothly, like clockwork. Rachel: Alright, but let me guess – this isn’t just about making really, really detailed to-do lists, is it? Autumn: Nope, exactly. Detailed planning is part of it, sure, but it's also about defining crystal-clear goals, gathering all the necessary data, assessing all the potential risks, and creating frameworks that prioritize simplicity and scalability. And two projects really embody this philosophy perfectly: The Empire State Building and Denmark’s entire wind power initiative. Rachel: And let me guess, before you dive into the details, these aren’t just cases where the stars suddenly aligned and everyone just got incredibly lucky? Autumn: Not at all. Let's start with the Empire State Building. It was built during the Great Depression—in under 18 months, can you believe it?—and it’s a perfect example of “think slow, act fast” in action. Rachel: Eighteen months? That even sounds impossible! Did they discover some kind of, you know, time-bending technology back then, or what? Autumn: Almost! What they really had was meticulous preparation. The architect, William Lamb, and the industrialist, John J. Raskob, designed their entire process to maximize efficiency from the moment construction began. Before a single beam was even laid, they planned out everything down to the very last detail—how many materials they'd need, the precise workflows, right down to the timelines for each specific stage. Rachel: So, they were… what, like, using spreadsheets and Gantt charts way back in the 1930s? Autumn: Well, they didn't have all the modern tech we have today, but their level of precision was still astonishing. They precisely calculated how many workers were required at each specific step, how much steel would be needed on-site each day, and even how to schedule deliveries to avoid any delays. That is why they were able to construct an incredible fourteen and a half floors every ten days—an unheard-of pace for such a massive project. Rachel: That kind of insane speed sounds like something that’d give any contractor today a massive heart attack. And they still came in under budget? Autumn: Yep. $41 million compared to an initial budget of $50 million. It’s a pretty great proof that thinking slow—you know, really methodical groundwork, feasibility assessments, risk avoidance—sets you up to act fast, with maximum efficiency and control during execution. Rachel: Okay, that’s some impressive skyscraper stuff. What about Denmark and wind turbines? I’m guessing they didn’t exactly build their entire energy infrastructure in under two years, right? Autumn: No, but their overall approach mirrors the same exact principle. Denmark is a global leader in wind energy because they initially embraced a modular, scalable method instead of aiming for these grand, centralized projects. Rachel: Modular as in… build it Lego-style? Autumn: Pretty much! They standardized turbine designs and initially rolled out smaller-scale installations first, testing and iterating as they went along. Instead of trying to fix literally everything beforehand on a mega-project level, they refined specific elements—turbine efficiency, ideal site conditions—as they scaled up. Rachel: So… small wins, stacking the bricks one by one, but with giant wind turbines? Autumn: Exactly. Every time they added a brand new wind farm, they always built on what had worked best from the last one. They reduced the previously long approval times, significantly drove down overall costs, and drastically increased efficiency along the way. And the result? Well, more than 40% of Denmark’s electricity is now generated by wind—an accomplishment that most nations can honestly only dream of achieving. Rachel: And the big lesson here? Don’t shoot for perfect on day one, as the saying goes? Autumn: Pretty much! The key is figuring out an adaptable framework from the start. Denmark’s modular approach allowed them to easily adjust course without having to scrap anything. They successfully avoided the "all-or-nothing" mentality that often unfortunately ends up derailing so many large-scale projects. Rachel: So standardized turbines are basically the opposite of California’s custom-designed disaster. Got it. Autumn: Precisely. Modular strategies also basically mean you’re not placing all your valuable bets on a single roll of the dice. You’re spreading risk out evenly and improving incrementally over time. Rachel: These aren’t strictly construction tips, though, right? What about how these ideas actually apply beyond bricks, steel, and turbines? Autumn: Great question. The exact same principles—clear objectives, really thoughtful design, and inherent adaptability—apply to a huge variety of projects in creative industries, tech, and even policymaking. Think about Pixar, for example. They don’t rush to finalize a movie in those very early stages; they actually storyboard endlessly, and refine ideas through constant and rigorous feedback before even committing to animation. Rachel: So they “think slow” during brainstorming and storyboarding to then “act fast” when they move into production. Autumn: Exactly. And that’s honestly the underlying theme here: that careful upfront investment—whether it’s time, really solid planning, or other resources—pays off massively with increased speed and higher quality where it really matters the most. Rachel: Alright, I’m seeing it pretty clearly now. But let me hit you with the skeptic’s question: Does this always work? Or are there specific cases where “thinking slow” just bogs everything down completely? Autumn: Well, that truly depends on recognizing the clear difference between deliberate planning and, you know, endless analysis paralysis. “Thinking slow” isn’t about just simply overthinking; it’s about being strategic and decisive in all your preparation so that you’re fully ready for rapid execution. Rachel: So this isn’t really a green light for, you know, procrastination. Autumn: Exactly. The main point is to work as smart as you possibly can on the front-end so you don’t end up getting delayed or completely derailed mid-project. Rachel: Alright, consider me largely sold—for now, at least. But I’ve gotta ask—what even happens when leaders just aren’t that meticulous? Are they simply doomed to repeat history over and over again? Autumn: Well, history is always there to teach us many important lessons, but consistently sticking to these key principles really shows us all how we can actively avoid repeating previous mistakes. Success just isn’t accidental, is built piece by piece.

Autumn: Okay, Rachel, so keeping that “think slow, act fast” idea in mind, let's dig into why so many projects go sideways… and that's our own brains. Are we really that terrible at making decisions, or is just bad luck and leadership to blame? Rachel: Hit me. Autumn: Well, mostly it's us, actually. Cognitive biases are like these mental shortcuts, or blind spots, that nudge us off course without us even realizing…. “How Big Things Get Done” highlights two big ones: “optimism bias” and the “planning fallacy”. They're like the dream team of project disaster. Rachel: Alright, Autumn, break 'em down for me. What's the deal with “optimism bias” first? Autumn: So, “optimism bias” is that classic thing where we expect the best without really facing the worst, you know? It's why we think we can assemble that IKEA thing in “15 minutes, tops,” even though we know it'll take two hours, at least. When you apply that to mega-projects, teams just assume everything will be A-OK, and they ignore the complexity and risks. Rachel: Cue the record scratch. Autumn: Exactly! Now add the planning fallacy to the mix, which focuses on time. It's where we think something will take way less time than it will, even if we've done it before and know it always takes longer. It's like Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you account for the fact that it will take longer than you expect.” Rachel: Hofstadter’s Law sounds like that’s going on my tombstone, or at very least, chiseled onto every bridge authority sign. So these two work together – optimism and the planning fallacy – and that just sets up planners for a big, fat “FAIL”? Autumn: Absolutely. Remember the California High-Speed Rail we were talking about? It starts with the dream of connecting L.A. to San Francisco. But, you know, then you get optimism mixed with the planning fallacy, and you've got a project team wildly underestimating timelines, ignoring uncertainties, and assuming there'll be no curveballs. Next thing you know, billions over budget and years behind schedule. Rachel: Yeah, I see how optimism and bad guessing make things worse. But shouldn't planners be data-driven? Like, look at spreadsheets from other similar projects and say, "Oh, these eight others went way over time and budget, maybe we should prepare for that"? Autumn: In theory, sure. But the authors suggest overconfidence often wins out. Engineers and planners get stuck thinking their project is "different" or "better planned." They're like, "That other project failed because they weren't as advanced as us," or "This time it'll go smoothly because of our new approach." It's like thinking you're special. Rachel: This is how seasoned engineers with 20 years of experience ignore all budgets and fall off the rails, figuratively, I presume. Any case studies to back all this up? Autumn: For sure. Flyvbjerg talks about infrastructure engineers who knew that similar projects always went over budget, but they ignored the data anyway. They relied on hunches and gut feelings, only to get the same results they swore they would avoid. If these pros can’t see past their biases, it shows how powerful – and how sneaky – these tendencies really are. Rachel: So basically, engineers tell themselves they'll outsmart failure, and then suddenly, they're the next chapter in “How Big Things Get Done”. Is there even hope for steering clear of these traps? Autumn: Yes, there is! And that's where Reference-Class Forecasting, or RCF, comes in. It's basically an antidote to cognitive bias – using real data from past projects to make forecasts. And you can’t say, “Oh, my project is special." Rachel: Alright, how does it work? Autumn: RCF has three steps. First, you find a “reference class” – a group of projects that are similar to yours in terms of scope, size, and type. Then, you “look at what happened in those past projects”—budgets, timelines, the challenges they faced. Finally, you “set your expectations accordingly”, using the data to develop realistic timelines, budgets, and risk assessments. Rachel: So, skip the fancy reinvention, just build on history. Sounds easy, but I imagine there's a lot of resistance, especially in the public sector. I mean, no politician wants to say, "We're building this highway, and it's going to take five years longer and cost twice as much what we said when we got elected." Autumn: Totally. It’s easier to ignore RCF, right? Because admitting something will be expensive and hard doesn't win popularity contests. Which is why leaders fall back on strategic misrepresentation. It’s the rosy picture they paint to get the go-ahead, like we talked about. Rachel: Living in a fantasy world until it all comes crashing down. So, any examples where RCF actually worked? Autumn: One example is the Hong Kong Express Rail Link. It was the example of a super-bad megaproject. Construction started in 2011, with a plan to wrap up in 2015. But the team hit all the classic problems: bad geology, not enough workers, equipment breaking down. When the original deadline arrived, only half the work was complete, and the costs had gone through the roof. Rachel: Sounds like your typical public works nightmare. Autumn: Exactly! But here’s the change. In 2015, the team leading the project, MTR, brought in outside help, and they used RCF. They studied similar underground rail systems globally, adjusted their plans using those lessons, and came up with backup plans for equipment and labor. Things turned around after that. The revised plans worked. And the rail line opened “three months ahead” of the new schedule in 2018. Rachel: So from total disaster to, well, kind of respectable. And that’s all thanks to RCF adding a little bit of reality? Autumn: Absolutely. RCF set them on a better path, based on data, not just blind hope. And you know what? It wasn’t just about fixing the course, it also helped rebuild trust by showing that they were learning from mistakes. Rachel: And bottom line? Autumn: RCF forces decision-makers to ground their plans in what's possible, given history, rather than what they wish would happen. Making optimism bias and the planning fallacy way less dangerous and leading to more successful, transparent project outcomes.

Autumn: So, just to recap, we've unpacked some key concepts from How Big Things Get Done. We started with how overly optimistic forecasts and, shall we say, “strategic misrepresentations” can really sink projects before they even get off the ground. Then, we dove into the "think slow, act fast" idea – that careful, upfront planning is what paves the way for smooth execution later on. Oh, and we also talked about how Reference-Class Forecasting can help us get real, avoid those cognitive biases, and make decisions based on actual data. Rachel: Right. The core message here seems clear: Real success isn't about shooting for the moon with blind ambition or making unrealistic promises, it's about solid preparation, being honest about the challenges, and, most importantly, using historical data to inform your decisions. Whether you're talking about building a skyscraper or, you know, just trying not to build a "train to nowhere," these principles can save you a ton of time, money, and a whole lot of headaches. Autumn: Precisely! So, next time you're brainstorming some grand idea, ask yourself: Are we really "thinking slow" about this to get it right? Because frankly, when the stakes are this high, playing it smart is always better than trying to rush ahead. Rachel: Couldn't agree more. Okay everyone, thanks for tuning in. And listen, if you're about to kick off a big project, maybe put aside the overly optimistic thinking, get your hands on some solid data, and remember this: the best laid plans are often the ones that seem a little… boring, but wow do they work. Autumn: Absolutely! Until next time, think slow, act fast, and let’s get those big things done!